# Is the Pledge of Alliegance Unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088 "2002-06-26T19:06:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/61 "2002-06-27T02:47:51Z")
Red Skelton’s famous commentary on the P of A is [here](http://www.usflag.org/skeltons.pledge.html). Note his prescient comment: > [@](#): > > Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/62 "2002-06-27T02:54:06Z")
Well, it’s a pity Congress took it upon itself to take what’s supposed to be a rite of national unity and tell some American citizens they aren’t wanted, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/63 "2002-06-27T03:06:17Z")
**Res** , if you would like to start a thread about the 14th Amendment, please do so. It seems like an unwarranted hijack here, since there is no real question for anybody else that the 1st Amendment does apply to the state and local governments. (And if you were to start that thread, I’d mention that recollection is that 14th Amendment incorporation goes back considerably earlier than the 1920s, but that my Con Law materials are not here accessible at the moment.) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/64 "2002-06-27T03:07:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*Well, it’s a pity Congress took it upon itself to take what’s supposed to be a rite of national unity and tell some American citizens they aren’t wanted, isn’t it? \*\* I agree with you **ME**. The Pledge was just fine without those two words. I actually can remember reciting it both ways. Nevertheless, speaking as an atheist, it never bothered me to say the words “under God.” Since I don’t believe in God, saying those words has no more force than, e.g., cheering for the Dodgers, even though I don’t root for them. Nor would I have dreamed of depriving myself of the pleasure of singing religious music, such as Handel’s Messiah and Brahm’s German Requiem. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/65 "2002-06-27T03:09:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*Well, it’s a pity Congress took it upon itself to … tell some American citizens they aren’t wanted, isn’t it? \*\* Now _thats_ the best line of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/66 "2002-06-27T03:15:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Nevertheless, speaking as an atheist, it never bothered me to say the words “under God.” Since I don’t believe in God, saying those words has no more force than, e.g., cheering for the Dodgers, even though I don’t root for them. Well, it’s a free country, and if an atheist wants to publicly express his devotion to God, that’s his business. One _could_ argue that an atheist who publicly expresses his devotion to God is in effect a hypocrite or a liar, but hey, if you don’t see it that way, so be it. Just bear in mind that other atheists may in fact have ethical objections to the idea. ---
**Author:** ![WV\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@WV\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WV_Woman)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/67 "2002-06-27T03:22:58Z")
I can’t believe people are actually _surprised_ this happened. The atheists will not be happy until even the simple mention of God is illegal … even in the privacy of your own home. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/68 "2002-06-27T03:35:07Z")
> [@](#): > > The atheists will not be happy until even the simple mention of God is illegal … even in the privacy of your own home. The Christians won’t be happy until the United States is turned into a theocracy and all unbelievers are put to death. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/69 "2002-06-27T03:35:39Z")
:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ResIpsaLoquitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@ResIpsaLoquitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ResIpsaLoquitor)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/70 "2002-06-27T03:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\ ***Res** , if you would like to start a thread about the 14th Amendment, please do so. It seems like an unwarranted hijack here, since there is no real question for anybody else that the 1st Amendment does apply to the state and local governments. > > (And if you were to start that thread, I’d mention that recollection is that 14th Amendment incorporation goes back considerably earlier than the 1920s, but that my Con Law materials are not here accessible at the moment.) \*\* Yeek. Wasn’t intended as a hijack. Someone asked earlier about strict constitutional interpretation, so I wanted to make the point that under the original understanding of the First and Fourteenth Amendments would make this OK, at least as applied to the states. Sorry for not expanding. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/71 "2002-06-27T03:36:46Z")
Damn, I got beat to the punchline by MEB. ---
**Author:** ![grendel72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/91b2a8/32.png) [@grendel72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grendel72)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/72 "2002-06-27T03:37:08Z")
Mentioning god is not the problem **WV** , the problem is forcing others to. The bigger problem is when theists try to mark their territory by pissing all over the constitution, remember- the ones who _changed the pledge_ were not atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/73 "2002-06-27T04:04:52Z")
december: The Supremes screwed up when they chucked Prop 209. Back to the topic: You who demand that the words “under God” belong in there–define “God” and tell me how by holding to your definition that doing so doesn’t either (a) exclude people or (b) demean your god. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/74 "2002-06-27T04:07:16Z")
This is for the people who keep bringing up “Nature’s God” in the Declaration: Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian, he was a Deist. Definition follows: deism: the belief, based only on reason and on evidence in nature, and not on any supernatural revelation, in the existence of a god who created the universe. (Cf. theism.) Which, I think, pretty much explains his use of that phrase. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/75 "2002-06-27T04:07:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Arcite \* > \*\* > > I have heard of that idea, but I don’t see it in the 14th amendment. Are we talking about Section 1? That seems like the only one that could by any stretch apply to this situation. > > How does this mean the 1st amendment applies against the states? If the 1st amendment said “The people shall have the right to free speech,” then maybe XIV could be taken to mean that a state law restricting certain speech “abridges the priviliges of citizens of the United States.” But all the 1st amendment does is restrict legistlative acts of Congress. Nowhere does XIV section 1 say “State legislatures are hereby prohibited from doing all of the things the national legistlature is prohibited from doing.” It just prohibits them from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, etc. > > Now, it could certainly be argued that a state law enforcing the recitation of the Pledge abridges people’s liberties and is therefore unconstitutional. But even if XIV Section 1 did transfer the specific proscriptions found in the Bill of Rights to all state legislatures, all that would mean is that state legislatures may make no law respecting the establishment of religion, etc. But even restrictions on state legislatures don’t affect county legislatures, boro or township legislatures, etc. If a state congress were to enact a statewide law enforcing the recitation of the Pledge, then just maybe, that would be unconstitutional. However, just as a local school board rule does not constitute an act of the US Congress, it also does not constitute an act of the state congress. Even if the 14th amendment gave the federal gummint the power to micromanage states, it still didn’t give it the power to micromanage counties, towns, or school boards. \*\* Not to get too much into it, but the basic idea is that certain “rights fundamental to ordered liberty” also found in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment (you gotta define what “due process” is somehow), and thus to local governmental bodies that derive their power from the state government. Hey, don’t knock it; it gave us rights to warrants, rights to counsel in criminal trials, Brown v. Board of Education, lots of good good stuff. ---
**Author:** ![mnemonic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@mnemonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemonic)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/76 "2002-06-27T04:13:31Z")
Not all US public schools require the PoA. My school has let us sit quietly instead of recite the Pledge (this is actually exercised by a few people despite strong desires to conform, in my case because I’m too tired in the morning to stand) since the beginning of this school year. I think (this is only my personal supposition) that many of the attackers of this decision realize those words in the PoA are technically unconsitutional. It’s just that realistically, they believe, they weren’t/aren’t intended to oppress or suppress anyone with other religious beliefs. To them, debating whether it’s consitutional or not is moot-- the words must remain in the pledge of allegiance to the US, for they reflect a subconscious (or not so subconscious) idea that part of what makes someone a real American is monotheism, _and_ that they’re basically not that big of a deal (then why must they remain, you ask? well, they’re kind of a big deal, I bet they’d say…). The best solution would be in my opinion to just disallow the requirement made by most schools of PoA recital. It wouldn’t take care of any unconstitutionality factor, but I think it’d quell most it not all persons’ offenses to its usage. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Maximino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@Mighty\_Maximino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Maximino)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/77 "2002-06-27T04:18:10Z")
I’m really torn about this one (and also about posting in such a long thread, where things tend to get swallowed up. Oh well.) I’m an atheist, and also currently a law student. I personally refused to recite the PoA back in high school (and also refused to lead prayers over the intercom – it doesn’t matter what the SC says about school prayer in my old school district), but I’ve never really believed in some kind of free-floating right to never hear anything that offends me. I _do_ think that the “under God” business has no place in the Pledge, and I’m just as happy to see it gone. I also read the opinion, though, and it seems like the justices had to nudge the petitioner along a little bit – based on the opinion, it didn’t sound like a terribly well-written brief. They probably could have deep-sixed it on some procedural basis without really touching the heart of the matter, which is what I’m inclined to think they should have done. I fear the inevitable backlash and firestorm (note that the Republican Party is urging schools to [nullify the order](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/pledge.politics/index.html) and intend to make a huge deal of it, even though it won’t go into effect for seven months). Basically, I’m just worried about “liberal” political capital being used on this issue at this time, when there are literally American citizens being held in military custody without legal recourse. This ruling could really polarize the judiciary and the public, and maybe eclipse some (in my opinion) really pressing legal issues. If we’re really unlucky, the people that want (say) Pedilla to be charged could be somehow tarred as heathen-anti-American-so-on-and-so-forths. On the gripping hand, if it’s Unconstitutional it’s gotta go, and you shouldn’t keep these things around just for political or convenience reasons. But I can’t help thinking that after 50 years it could have waited just a little longer. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/78 "2002-06-27T04:28:30Z")
I don’t really give a crap if kids are offering chickens to Cthulu in public schools, but…a major political party recommends “nullifying this decision” and telling schools to ignore it? Now when we don’t like Federal Court decisions we get to just ignore them? ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/79 "2002-06-27T04:30:26Z")
**MEBuckner** , have you been reading the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s coverage of the decision on their website? Scores of people against the decision for all the wrong reasons. One man wrote a letter to the site saying that it was wrong to take the words “under God” out of the Constitution… :rolleyes: I’m going to write a letter to the editor, or maybe a New Attitudes column, in the hope that our point of view is heard, instead of the dozens of letters that will undoubtedly be there tomorrow morning condemning Judge Goodwin’s opinion. There has to be some way to show people that all of “mainstream America” is not against the decision (as if people should be using that as legal basis for anything). ---
**Author:** ![WV\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@WV\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WV_Woman)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088/80 "2002-06-27T04:36:08Z")
prav, some court decisions _should_ be ignored. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-alliegance-unconstitutional/116088.md?page=5)